Web Letters: Iron My Skirt

So, women have learned that a clean, kid-gloved campaign is what will bring them victory in American politics? Iron my campaign, then?

Sexism has gone underground. Some of us are so used to second-guessing our experiences of it at work (where knowing how much more the guys make than us is grounds for dismissal), in casual conversation (it's tiresome to discuss why the Hillary nutcracker isn't funny),and sometimes at home (repeatedly asking for help in a two-career household is being a shrew)--that when it comes out in its best party dress all made up for high-definition lighting, we don't even know what we're looking at. Of course it's simplistic and just plain wrong to say that Hillary lost because of misogyny. Of course I'm happy that she did as well as she did. But a spade is a spade, even if some of you can't recognize it.

Kristi Leach

New Port Richey, FL

I'm done. I've been skeptical about Katha Pollitt in the past, but "Iron My Skirt" is the finisher. I'm not going to read another of her columns again.

Ms. Pollitt is of the old school genre of feminism that subscribes to the idea that any criticism of a woman is a criticism of all women. At the start of Hillary Clinton's campaign, I was ambivalent about her; at worst feeling that she represented Democratic Party establishment and a continuation of the center-right politics of her husband. By the end of her campaign, I had changed and was moved towards the "can't stand her" camp described by Ms. Pollet, especially after the 3 am ad and her statement about RFK.

Keith Olberman's "indignant, hysterical bombast" about Ms. Clinton was not just about the RFK statement-- if Pollitt had listened, she would have realized it was a response to the conglomeration of all the Clinton's uses of Rovian politics during her run for the presidency.

Ms. Clinton has certainly changed the way women running for the presidency will be seen in the future. We now recognize that they can be just as crass, divisive, selfish and Machiavellian as men.

Scott Michael Polk

Austin, TX

Camille Paglia has had the final word on Hillary Clinton: she is Evita! The cult of personality mascarading as populism.

Norman Ravitch

Savannah, GA

I believe that Hillary wants to make a presentation to the convention after she has been nominated. After which, she can concede gracefully to Obama. She may very well have remained in the race because she did not want to acknowledge defeat and those around her told her she was going to pull it out. She believed because it was what she wanted. The reason some of her campaigning became more strident could very well have been that she knew deep down it was a lost cause and was frustrated as she was still getting the same feedback from her confidants. She couldn't quit because she would have been letting them down, a lose, lose situation.

There are always going to be the misogynists and the racists, many of whom will deny it. (I'm voting for McCain because..., not because he's black or she's a she. I would never do that.)

Her refusal to admit a mistake was a problem (too much like Bush). Another problem early on, when Senator Clinton was the solid front runner was her refusal to have Q&As with the press. The press became annoyed and eventually got even. Our leaders have to be willing to admit mistakes and talk to the press, else we do not trust them.

Brian Pinsley

North Wales, PA

It's understandable that there are many angry losers in this primary campaign. Many women. Some men too.

But more puzzling to this Hillary supporter are the sore winners, still angry at Hillary for running.

Obama supporters: Your guy won! That's what electoral politics is about: winning. I applaud. Now we can look at the issues again.

I am not a sore loser. I am happy to see Obama win. I expect him to win in November. Then we'll see what happens in Iraq and in the US.

But Obama's victory is a lost opportunity for universal health insurance. Both Obama and Hillary are "centrists," that is, conservatives. Hillary offered a corporate health policy. But it was better than nothing.

Froma Harrop put it better than I can.

Aaron Lercher

Baton Rouge, LA

Hillary Clinton's speech ending her campaign for the presidency was brilliant and exactly what she needed to say. Her campaign has expanded the possibilities women and girls may imagine. She will fight for a variety of measures of particular importance to women and become a feminist hero. As a feminist from the 1970s, I can only applaud these contributions. She must not become, however, a model for feminists.

Hillary lost the nomination because of her abandonment of key feminist ideals, not, as she claims, because of sexism. The media and opponents were sexist, but that pales before the mistakes she herself made as she fought "like one of the boys" to beat Obama, Too often, she resorted to dishonesty and belittling remarks about her opponent. Her repeated references to the assassination of Robert Kennedy were particularly brutal and should disqualify her from being the vice presidential candidate. Ready with plans for "Day 1," she indicated that she believed that government should be from the top down and left little space for listening and compromising, even with her own followers. Women became a focus only when they proved themselves to be among her staunchest supporters. Hilary would not admit she was losing. She used misleading measures to claim she was ahead when little chance remained of her gaining the nomination. Like George W. Bush, she seemed to be in a bubble, isolated from the reality of defeat.

Feminism is not about the power gained by individual elite women willing to follow the destructive patterns of men who will do anything possible to win. Feminism is about the wisdom of practices, traditionally destined as womanly, of listening, bridging conflicts and putting the needs of others before your own fight to achieve personal gains. Ironically, these are values Baraca Obama showed in the campaign more than Hillary Clinton did.

Marilyn Dell Brady

Alpine, TX

I can't help but respond incredulously to Marilyn Dell Brady's take on feminism, in one of your web letters below: "Feminism is about the wisdom of practices, traditionally destined as womanly, of listening, bridging conflicts and putting the needs of others before your own fight to achieve personal gains."

Nothing could be more insidious than such a pronouncement. Stereotypically "womanly" and "manly" traits may indeed prove to have some basis in biology, and therefore can't be ignored. But neither should they be swallowed whole and wielded as a political weapon. The point of feminism is to guarantee all adults equal opportunity to be assholes, saints or something in between. Though his speaking style is much more conciliatory than Clinton's, Obama is no more saintly than she is when you look carefully at his campaign. Perhaps you prefer a "womanly" veneer on a "manly" campaigner, but you should not couch your preference in what you've errantly decided to call true feminism.

Ruth Richert

Seattle, WA

We should be thankful for Hillary's campaign?

Thankful that she told lie after lie, especially about her role in enabling the invasion of Iraq?

Or should we be thankful that Hillary promised to "obliterate" Iran, at Israel's behest?

Hillary is more McCain than McCain and people saw that.

We don't need another "friend" of Israel in the White House, that will send our kids off to fight Israel's "existential" enemies like Hillary promised.

Hillary is just another bought-and-paid-for political hack, that has her carpetbags always packed, ready for that next opportune moment.

Thankfully, that moment will not be in 2008.

Greg Bacon

Ava, MO

As someone who has been a student of feminism (or womanism) and who has championed the transformations that it has brought about, I have found it interesting how Hillary Rodham Clinton has hijacked feminism--or the women's movement--with the help of a large number of major feminist figures. I have also been stunned at the kind of anger she has been able to stir in mainly middle-class women, many of whom disparage feminism, against her fellow senator and candidate Barack Obama.

For this so-called progressive, Senator Clinton’s whole campaign has been a source of confusion and frustration, particularly when one considers that she was crudely and insensitively pandering to working-class and middle-class white men, as well as consistently banking on her role as a former President's wife.

Clinton's campaign was not founded on some principled dedication to the politics of "sexual difference"; it had always been an exercise in late-twentieth- and early-twenty-first-century American politics of divide and conquer.

Clinton continued strategies unleashed during the sixties and seventies by the likes of Richard Nixon (e.g., the Republican "Southern Strategy") and George C. Wallace (Dixiecrat racial "bait and switch), strategies continued by such humanitarians as Ronald Reagan, Lee Atwater, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove. Clinton’s refinement on those strategies is that she added to the crass manipulation of class and race the crass manipulation of gender.

In that light, one can agree with Katha Pollitt’s thesis: Clinton has broken boundaries. However, the boundaries broken might not be the anticipated ones. Clinton has proved that a woman, too, can abuse women (and everyone else) for power.

I know that there are better women out there. And just as an admittedly imperfect Barack Obama did, at least one will seemingly materialize out of nowhere and shock the status quo with her meteoric emergence.

Ben G. Lanier-Nabors

Brusly, LA

After reading this article, one could be forgiven for thinking Katha Pollitt actually supported Senator Hillary Clinton's bid for the White House. She did not.

Instead of supporting the smartest, toughest, most experienced, and, yes, the most liberal candidate with the best chance of winning in November (see Neil DeGrassse Tyson's 6/6/08 New York Times editorial, "Vote by Numbers"), she backed the candidate with a résumé the size of a Post-It. She thanks Senator Clinton for being the target of the most concentrated sexist attacks against one woman in recent memory, without acknowledging how that sexism benefited her candidate.

As far as I'm concerned Ms. Pollitt has lost all credibility in remarking on women's lives.

Renee Mittler

New York, NY

I read Ms Pollitt's piece and then surfed through some of the letters. As others have observed, most of the anti-Clinton stuff did come from men which may mean something and it may not.

Clinton was defeated for a variety of reasons, some of them having to do with sexism and some not. What were they? Well, how about the relentless diet of press criticism over years that leads quite normal people who know nothing whatever about her to say they can't stand her. Then the media was completely in the tank for Obama, from Matthews getting tingles up the leg to a fairly relentless pro-Obama spin at the Washington Post and New York Times. This was well supported by some women writers like Noonan and Dowd, who seem consumed by some sort of Hillary Clinton mania whose source has much to do with personal prejudice as reality. Just about every black commentator supported Obama, presumably for the same reason he got 80-90 percent of the black vote. There's nothing wrong with it, but don't deny it exists. Some of the more honest journalists have fessed up to the charge of pro-Obama bias, which is self- evidently true. The good news for Democrats it that it should be present in the general election as well.

Moving from the media to politics, we have to accept that the Clintons are anathema to the most leftist constituency in the Democratic party--those that are totally opposed to free trade and much of the governing pragmatism exhibited by Bill Clinton in the '90s. This would include many of the opinion writers at the The Nation, I would guess. If anyone doubts the existence of this group, they should just take a glance through some of the stuff at places like the Kos blog site, which is one of its spiritual homes. The excoriation of Bill Clinton, the only two-term Democratic President since FDR, is extraordinary. Hillary's vote on Iraq, no matter that she had plenty of Democratic company, and general realism about politics in America is unappealing to this group who were even constantly damning her for trying to bring universal healthcare to America, surely a prime Democratic goal.

Then there was Obama, a candidate who is enormously compelling and a worthy standard bearer of the party. Perhaps even more important, he ran an incredibly smart campaign, for which much credit must go to Axelrod and Plouffe. This was most apparent in their concentration on the small states and caucus system, where they had clearly calculated they could garner enough delegates to counter Clinton's strength in the big states and among women. At the end of the day, this strategy and Obama's fundraising prowess were, I believe, the major factors that gave him victory, although his team was also skillful (with the gleeful assistance of the media, who love to promote racial strife) in creating faux issues like the Clintons' so-called racism.

Obama is a great candidate whose positions in reality are little different from Clinton's so we're probably going to get Clintonism even if we don't get her. I suspect some of Obama's supporters on the left of the party are going to be surprised by how similar is his governing style to that of Bill Clinton.

John Ellis

Old Saybrook, CT

In the article there wasn't even a hint at the fact that Hillary is a criminal. It is worth mentioning because that is the real reason why she lost.

Bob Redman

Jacksonville, FL

This article may not make the claim that Clinton lost due to sexism, but it certainly fans the flames of bitterness and hatred burning in the minority of die-hard Clinton fans who feel like this election was stolen from Clinton in some massive misogynistic conspiracy. This fallacy needs to die now, and there's no better way to disprove it than to look at the exit polls themselves.

In most states voters were asked if the candidate's gender influenced their decision and who they voted for. Here are the results from California:

Did gender influence your decision?
No (76%): 47% Clinton, 47% Obama
Yes (23%): 70% Clinton, 26% Obama

Clinton's gender gave her a stunning 44% advantage over Obama! The results were similar all over the country:

California: 44% advantage Texas: 22%
Oregon: 34%
Arizona: 30%
New York: 58% !!!!
Illinois: 22%
Ohio: 12%
Massachusetts: 53% and many more...

Anyone who still believes Clinton lost due to sexism knowing these facts is simply in denial. Even if you allow some leeway by assuming it is more socially acceptable to admit to an anti-male bias than an anti-female bias, these numbers are just too large to ignore.

I should add that the same was true for race; African-Americans overwhelmingly voted for Obama. I don't support reverse-racism or reverse-sexism, but while Clinton's gender helped her in every state, Obama's race helped him in some states and hurt him in others.

Jay Lundy

San Jose, CA

Let's talk about the "Iron My Shirt" line. It was funny, because it poked fun at your sacred cow. It's funny still, because you still don't get it. Younger people got it.

Being old enough to have witnessed Bill Clinton's presidency, I understood very well that Hillary Clinton was not the recipient of such heavy criticism as Bill. She had a opponent, in Barack Obama, who was very reluctant to criticize, though he made the occasional attempt to differentiate his campaign. But nothing like the terms "draft dodger,""perjuror," "bribe-taker" etc, that Bill Clinton received.

Being young enough to mostly hang out with younger people, I was surprised at first just how poorly some of Hillary's fans, especially older women, took criticism of Hillary, especially given that it was tame, and was most certainly not severe.

But it seems to just be a generational difference, and sorry to say, one generation appears bent on going to their grave bitter and angry. Seeing everywhere misogyny that doesn't exist. It's sad really.

Misogyny, racism, even anti-white, anti-male thinking all exists... but the point is, it doesn't exist enough that it should stop you from accomplishing your goals, and the truth of the matter is, Hillary could have won; she lost because she turned out to not be such a good leader of a political campaign.

Robert Dupuy

Nashville, TN

As a supporter of Clinton I was preparing my rebuttal to the letters posted to date, when I noted a strange trend: most of the sneering, hateful, sexist letters were written by men! Well, well, well! I guess my husband, a true Clinton fan from way back, is a minority...and yes, The Nation has played a role in the pseudo-reporting--I was stunned every time I saw one of the editors or contributors praising Obama, the pseudo-progressive. I was raised by two liberal '60s hippies; what passes for progressiveness these days is shameful.

Karen Wizevich

West Hartford, CT

OK, so we dont live in a "post-misogynist America" unless we elect a woman, and we dont live in a "post-racial America" unless we vote for a black man. A further requirement, I'm sure, that no one can be considered legitimately a black or female candidate unless they are of the proper ideology.

Doesn't it strike you all as ironic that the ideology of "inclusiveness" seems to be the most hung-up on race, gender and ethnicities?

If the Republicans ran a woman and a black male against each other in a party primary, the focus would be on who's the better conservative choice for the elected office, not gender or racial issues.

That we dont have enough of either candidates, I feel, is due to the fact that self-absorbed, electorate is too consumed in narrow voting block self interested to note their own enslavement to a party that is only too happy to pander for votes than to take any real responsibility for the nations problems.

Please though, by all means, continue to fight amongst yourselves. Dont let me disturb you.

Harry Mallory

Corvallis, OR

Because of The Nation's totally in-the-tank bias toward Obama and its hostility to Hillary, I literally stopped visiting the magazine's website, which I used to do daily, and I stopped copying well-written articles and circulating them to my lengthy list of poltics-hungry friends from Maine to Georgia to California. I even stopped even gazing at the cover of the paper version of the magazine upon arrival. Straight to the recycle bin.

It was refreshing to discover on my several times a day visit to RealClearPolitics.com their highlighting today The Nation's Katha Pollitt's insightful analysis of the real and positive contribution of Hillary's campaign, which I immediately circulated to my list with the appended announcement that "Obamaton Nation Mag. finally publishes dead-on appreciative piece re Hillary."

Now I can finish the campaign with The Nation's pro-Obama, anti-McCain/Bush-Cheney guns ablazing, and I will forget, but not forgive, The Nation's embarrassingly unprofessional participation in the campaign as of this date.

Speed Howell

Atlanta, GA

Clinton enabled the Iraq invasion, ran a clumsy campaign and was flatly out-politicked by Obama. These facts can certainly account for her loss. But the "feminists" among you claiming that the sexism was negligible are so blind as to almost be perverse.

First, you belittle the wildly overt misogyny of the media (excruciatingly documented by Eric Boehlert at Media Matters and Andrew Stephen of The New Statesman). Try substituting racial equivalents for the slurs Clinton has endured on primetime TV and "progressive" blogs, and you will shake with outrage.

Second, you accuse every whistleblower (including Clinton herself) of ignoring all other salient political realities and blaming her loss entirely on the misogyny. This is simply false. The Clinton campaign has raised the issue of gender far less frequently than the Obama campaign has raised race (see mediamatters.org for a detailed accounting), and neither candidate has ever been so stupid as to blame his or her losses squarely on prejudice.

Third, you refuse to note political equivalencies where they plainly exist. Clinton's arrogance, her posture of inevitability, her puffed-up claims to experience and judgment, her outspoken and divisive spouse, her win-at-all-costs ambition, her manipulation of the party establishment, her mendacity and evasiveness, her cynical use of prejudices against her opponent--all these charges are equally true of Obama. Don't believe me? Off the top of my head: Obama calling Clinton's LBJ comment "ill-advised" and repeating to the press that people felt it "diminished" MLK. Letting his campaign cast the cocaine reference as "racist" no fewer than twenty-one times. Not firing anyone from his South Carolina campaign after their memo crying race about patently non-racial comments such as "fairytale." Countenancing Jesse Jackson Jr's support after his obscene claim that Hillary's New Hampshire tears were proof of racism and privilege. Not saying a single word about the sexism implicit in his pastor's rant about Hillary "fitting the mold" of the US presidency. Saying he didn't know whether he was running against Hillary or Bill Clinton in a national debate. Calling Ferraro "divisive" when he had made exactly the same observation about himself two years earlier. Equating Ferraro and Wright in his speech on race. Mounting legal challenges to the Michigan and Florida revote plans after having denounced Clintonites' legal challenge in Nevada as "subverting democracy." Quietly teaming up with Ted Kennedy and courting Clinton's declared superdelegates. Going back on his pledge to take federal funds in the general election. Fudging on the amount of money he actually took from Rezko. Giving endless equivocations on how much he knew of his church's ideology. Pretending he never meant that whole thing he said about meeting with heads of rogue states without preconditions. Countenancing his wife's public doubt that she would support Clinton if Clinton became the Democratic nominee.

None of this is at all surprising in a politician, nor do I feel it disqualifies him to be President. Nor would I put any of it past Hillary Clinton. It's presidential politics--why shouldn't Obama play hardball? And why shouldn't Clinton? Open your eyes, "feminists," to the uncomfortable truth that every political crime committed by Clinton in this primary season has also been committed--with the impunity your own misogyny has given him-- by Obama.

Ruth Richert

Seattle, WA

Poor Hillary. Defeated by a black man because of sexism. It wasn't because she ran her campaign into a ditch, or that her "accomplishments" are all achieved by hanging onto her husband's coattails for thirty-five years. No, it had to be sexism.

And women think she is the pioneer. the trailblazer, helping their daughters break through that glass ceiling. Yes, indeed. Thanks to Hillary, all of our daughters can now dream the dream. They can be President. If only they will stoop to Hillary's level--that of the most vile, corrupt, dishonest, lying, self-pitying politician of our lifetime. But first, they will need to find a husband whose coattails they can latch onto for thirty-five years.

That so many who voted for her and supported her, seeming to have no knowledge of her character or lifetime of corruption, is frightening. That they were willing to hand our great nation's highest office to a woman who is so dishonest--just because she is a woman--that is a truly alarming notion.

When an honest, qualified woman runs for the Presidency, we will have reason to be proud. Hillary is not that woman.

Richard Kramer

Pittsburgh, PA

Let's be straight. The Iron My Shirt crew were employees (perhaps "agents" is the better word) of the Clinton campaign, admitted to that New Hampshire rally to enflame feminist support for a candidate on her way out the door.

Within a very narrow window, Bill gave out his Dartmouth "the biggest fairy-tale I've ever seen!" appraisal of Obama's candidacy; the Iron My Shirt boys were snuck into and out of a rally, klieg lights ready to train on their camera-oriented signs, with prepared commentary from Hill; and Hillary choked up that she was only doing it "for you" at the all-girl coffee klatsch.

She saved her bacon, and that of Bill and their big-money-pals and gals, and their cadre of political hacks. This was the most cynical campaign ever run, with the prime rube being identified as the aging feminist female, those that Hillary had kissed off years earlier.

Jacques Rarignac

Nice, France

Pollitt writes utter and complete nonsense. " Clinton showed herself to be tough, tireless, supersmart and definitely ready to lead on that famous Day One"? Indeed?

By running a campaign that will be studied for years for its ineptness? For campaigning on hypocrisy, opportunism, smears and racism? The notion that "misogyny" reared its ugly head is as phony as the "Iron my shirts" incident engineered by the Clinton campaign itself.

Funny how "misogyny" failed to become an issue until Clinton was losing, whereupon she discovered it--after she vanquished seven male contenders! Funny how media commentators leaped on "misogyny" -- in order to avoid discussing the ongoing racist tactics of the Clinton campaign. And funny how the Obama campaign adjured sexism, unlike the Clinton campaign's relationship with racism.

Clinton certainly has inspired America's young women: they now know they have to be decent, intelligent. knowledgeable and ethical; they will not gain office through dirty tricks, backroom deals, stance-shifting, and riding a man's coat-tails. And the country is better for it. Hillary is gone; long live the cleaner aftermath.

Michael Anderson

New York, NY

As a middle-aged woman, I'm amazed at the depth of the anger by Clinton supporters and some of the examples they use to show bias. But here's the sentence in the story that is very telling: "It's incredibly important for Clinton to do the right thing and rally these women to Obama, and I wish I felt surer that she would rise to the occasion."

And why don't you feel surer? It's because Clinton has done everything in her power to undermine her rival's chances of winning and she was aided and abetted by women's organizations. The disgraceful non-concession speech was just a rallying cry to her supporters--supporters that she knew damn well were threatening to vote for McCain.

It saddened me that members of Congress had to intervene just to get her to concede to Obama. Can you imagine the criticism a man would have taken had he not acknowledged his opponent's victory?

Niamh Sanders

Nashville, TN

Out comes Katha Pollitt, The Apologist. Never fails. I'll give Hillary Clinton "a standing ovation" when flying pigs soar over a frozen Hell. Politt says Clinton didn't lose because she's a woman, after spending five paragraphs implying that's exactly why she lost. Gimme a break.

To quote Maya Angelou, a vocal Clinton supporter, "People will forget what you said. People will forget what you did. People will never forget how you made them feel." This trenchant observation about human nature sums up HRC's Achilles' heel from the moment she declared. It's no accident that her negatives have been so high and so polarizing across the country. After an ambitious cipher and poseur hijacked the White House for eight years, the last thing the electorate wanted or needed was an ambitious opportunist and egomaniac, no matter her gender, no matter how smart and politically ruthless she may be.

I believe character is fate. Obama exudes real character, his comparative inexperience notwithstanding. The nation craves a leader with deeply embedded character, principles, ethics, commitment to his family, his children and all Americans, to the rule of law, to the Bill of Rights, to the Constitution. HRC seems primarily committed to HRC, to her presidential inevitability, her "entitlement" to follow in the glamorous footsteps of her putative husband (has anyone cared to notice or comment on the fact that in all the televised moments of Bill and Hill, they only hug, but never, ever kiss even on the cheek, let alone on the lips... sorry, this may be an enduring partnership, but it's not a real marriage, and that makes a lot of Americans feel manipulated and very uneasy).

Ms. Pollitt, spare me the instant analysis of Hillary's gauntlet of misogyny. If it had been Barbara Boxer out there, things might have been very different. It was Hillary, and things went the way they were supposed to, just like the movies. The good guy, who happens to be black, won.

Stewart Braunstein

Deerfield Beach, FL

Pollitt gives a decent description of the sexist, woman-bashing brutality aimed at Hillary Clinton, by the MSM, bloggers, and competitors, including Barack Obama. Obama's "finger," "periodically," "brush off," snubbing, and sexist reference to a plant worker and TV reporter as "sweetie" belies his smarmy sexist attitude to females. Never once did he denounce the "bros before hos" Ts; never once did he publically insist the misogynist treatment of his opponent cease. Real leadership and a "pro-woman" candidate would have called for this treatment to stop, if for no other reason than he has two young daughters. Are they hos? Are they bitches? Not once did he display "pro-woman" leadership, and to the contrary, he participated in the sexist treatment of Hillary, and therefore all women.

You're correct that Hillary's candidacy has brought the sexism out of the closet, and the idea that this country is "post-sexist" or "post-racist" must be some self-deluded state of mind possessed by coastal-living, latte-drinking trust fund brats. At least the delusion of that fantasy has been ripped to shreds. Racism and sexism are very much alive and well in the interior and heartland of this nation. The sexism is in no way the fault of Hillary Clinton, nor anything she has done or said. No woman ever should be treated in that manner. It is, as nicely expressed by another reader, a fact that men are still fanactical about the destruction of powerful women, and that speaks volumes about how this country socializes males.

That you ask Hillary's supporters to view Obama as pro-woman and believe he has women's interests at heart is ludicrous. His rhetoric may mesmerize and enchant, but his actions in this campaign, and his inactions regarding the treatment of Hillary by his campaign surrogates, speak louder than words.

Right now, Hillary Clinton is the most powerful woman in America; she can make it or break it for Obama, and he and his campaign most surely know that. She will do what is best for the Dem party, but he needs to show some respect at this point. Apologizing for failing to insist his supporters stop the misogynistic treatment would go a long way to healing the gut wounds in the party. Maybe that's what she is insisting upon during this week post-primary season. Aretha sang it nicely: R-E-S-P-E-C-T.

Charlotte Downey

Eureka Springs, AR

Leaving aside the laddish misogyny, it's instructive to see what pissed off the "respectable" sexists, viz. the fact that Hillary didn't "graciously" drop out when a viable male candidate emerged.

This is an old story: women as a reserve army of workers. Women are supposed to fill in when there aren't men around to do the job but graciously go home when there are men who are willing and able. Those that don't want to go are castigated as "selfish" and, if possible, booted out. So kudos for those women who filled in at defense plants during WWII and then graciously went home, or went back to lousy pink-collar jobs, to make room for returning GIs. According to a survey by the Women's Bureau after the war, over 80 percent of these women said that they would have preferred to keep their wartime jobs if they could.

Then there's the even older story: girls are "allowed" to play sometimes, but when the score is tight, they're supposed to retire to the bleachers and cheer the boys on. Women's participation is an indulgence we can't afford when the going gets tough, and women who insist on staying in the game are obstructive. So Susan Faludi notes that after 9/11 there was a surge of sexist sentimentality about the macho male heroes and female victims, and the pitch that even if the country could afford to indulge women when things were going well, we couldn't afford it in times of danger.

The primaries are over. This issue isn't why Clinton lost, or whether she should have lost, but the old, old themes that emerged during this campaign that deserve some serious consideration.

Harriet Baber

Chula Vista, CA

Katha Pollitt may be right in one small sense: Hillary Clinton may have made it easier for women to run for high office--super-wealthy women.

As for the the rest of us, she a was a disgusting, self-seeking, psychotic set-back, shameless in her willingness to say anything in order to gain the right to do nothing (at best), or (more likely) kick more sand on more poor people, who remain disproportionately female.

Pollitt's unenlightening triteness, meanwhile, remains one of the main reasons I very often don't read my copy of the magazine. This is the best feminist columnist you can find?

Michael Dawson
www.consumertrap.com

Portand, OR

It's true that by being the first credible female candidate for the presidency, Senator Clinton became the target of an unbelievable wave of misogynist slander. Nobody can now say we live in a post-sexist wonderland and the next credible female candidate will have an easier time of it. Sadly, though, Clinton engaged in dishonesty by claiming she won the popular vote, treachery by claiming McCain to be more prepared for the presidency than Obama, and cheating by trying to steal the Michigan and Florida delegates (which she agreed would not be counted) for herself. Worse, her campaign slandered Obama at every turn as a turban-wearing possible Muslim, Reagan-loving Republican, incompetent affirmative action candidate, America-hating '60s radical/black nationalist, and privileged elitist. Her use of Joe McCarthy-style guilt-by-association (as with Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright) was stunning in its cynicism. In a show of sore-loserdom, she withheld her concession and congratulations on the night of Obama's victory. She has so poisoned Obama's image in the minds of her loyal followers that thousands or millions of her fervently feminist supporters are likely to support McCain, a candidate who opposes a woman's right to choose and doesn't even believe in equal pay for equal work. And one can't repeat often enough that Hillary supported Bush's war in Iraq, a war that's killed untold thousands and turned the clock back on women's rights by decades if not centuries in that ravaged land. Some voters may be less likely to vote for women after witnessing Clinton's shameful and unforgivable behavior; let's hope their numbers are small.

Alvin Orloff

San Francisco, CA

Apparently feminists like Katha Pollitt do not think that Hillary Clinton should be held to the same standards as male politicians.

A lot of the negative press coverage had to do with things Senator Clinton actually did and said. She refused, time and again, to acknowledge Senator Obama's victories and even declined to endorse him on the very last day on which primaries were held. She ran a commercial depicting Senator Obama with darker skin than he in fact has, and ran another with a picture of Osama bin Laden in it. She voted for the Iraq war and refused to admit it was a mistake. At one point she said Senator McCain is better qualified to be President than Senator Obama.

Would Hillary Clinton even have been in the position she was in had her husband not been a former President? Highly unlikely. As a matter of fact, she entered the Democratic primaries with every conceivable advantage: a 2-to-1 advantage over Obama in fundraising, brand-name recognition, a party machine that backed her, the support of PR bigwigs like Mark Penn and a network of allies, peers, and colleagues that was in every respect formidable.

Obama won not because of rampant anti-female sexism, not because people in the media harbor anti-Hillary animus but because he ran a smarter, more frugal, more inclusive campaign. He was more charismatic. He came across as more authentic and human. He opposed the Iraq war long before it became popular to do so. He was right on the issues.

It is a real shame that there are women who dislike Senator Obama for no other reason than that he outshined Hillary Clinton.

Jay Nunn

New York, NY

I am unbelievably tired of all the characterization of anti-Hillary activities and statements being construed as anti-woman.

Wake up, people! There is ample reason for people who like women to not like Hillary! Face it, much of what you have seen and heard is what Hillary has brought out in people dating back to at least 1992.

Ken Burnside

Lake Jackson, TX

Katha, your publication stands to take some of the blame for this too. I hoped for so much better from The Nation, which never missed an opportunity to rigorously apply a double standard in this campaign. Clinton got a pounding from every single one of your columnists, no matter what she said, while Obama got only praise or the random whimpy disclaimer that his position, whilst not perfect, was somehow superior to hers.

At no point did any of your writers seriously analyze Obama's glaring deficits, his ephemeral voting record, his questionable personal associations or his nebulous political background.

At what point did anyone at The Nation cry foul when Obama mimed the "brush-off," referred to her and then scratched his face with a middle finger (I was there and saw the crowd's reaction--that was not unintentional); made comments like "periodically, she gets a little down" or talked about the "china flying"? Not even once. If (for example) Hillary had referred to Obama as "tap-dancing" around an issue, your publication would have laid into her à la Olbermann.

None of you has clean hands here. Nice work. I won't be renewing my subscription.

Susan L Petry

Durham, NC

I find the cause-and-effect relationship implied to Sen. Clinton's failure to win the votes needed for the nomination as the Democratic Party candidate for the presidency to sexism (genderism, really) problematic. There is absolutely no doubt that gender bias exists and some people decided not to vote for her because of that. Is it not also true that racism exists and some people (I saw some video evidence of it) were very clear about not voting for a black man? How is it that Senator Clinton was 20 to 40 points ahead of Sen. Obama when the race started, even just before Iowa? Did that reflect just her women supporters? It is only when the debate began that Sen. Clinton started to lose ground. I am sure it should be possible to figure out what percentage of men and women voted for whom; that should be some empirical measure of genderism’s influence in this election. Similar analysis is possible to get some indication of the role of racism as well. True, numbers do not tell the whole story, but it is a pretty good substitute for speculation.

Most people I know, men and women, but progressive liberals, did not vote for and campaigned against her because of her politics. We view her as a closet neoconservative. If there is one single reason why she lost, it is her support of the Iraq war, buttressed by her pronouncement that if necessary, she would obliterate Iran. She really missed the mood of the country, a rejection of America’s unpalatable place in the world today; this is her other major failure. Sen. Obama, on the other hand understood very well what the new attitude in the country is, and has indicated that he will do his darnedest to change that. He will try at least, and that is all we ask; how successful he will be, that is another question.

M. Siddique

Chevy Chase, MD

Could it be that Mr. Obama is just that strategic? So prescient that he knew that men on both the left and right would rally together to attempt to slay the she-beast?

As one, they acted to sublimate their fear, hatred and jealousy towards a brilliant but somewhat untested biracial candidate--but a male, nonetheless--and therefore, still one of them--in order to give expression to their more ancient and visceral hatred, mistrust and clearly violent inclination towards "the Other." That Original Other which gives genuine threat to their centuries-old male power and control.

Perhaps the general election will reveal the lying-in-wait racial shades of power-based self-protection. One hopes not. But the primary election would have been very different for Mr. Obama (and us all) had Mrs. Clinton not been in the contest to serve as the whipping girl for the men of our nation who seem to despise anything non-white male, particularly the female (though white) version of the human species.

I am indebted to Mrs. Clinton for fighting the good fight, all the way to the end, despite these "men" and their school-yard misogyny.

I sense there is still a serious dearth of true courage and leadership, in the defense of women.

Esquire just dropped its current issue on my doorstep, with an article celebrating all the four-letter words that bash, rip and truly hate females. Some of these words are nothing less than pornographic. I thought about the Esquire writers and editors who thought such an article was a good idea, but determined they were too far gone to even bother with a letter. Men that celebrate such words must routinely keep a certain type of culturally impoverished (and almost exclusively male) company--one with which, luckily, the folks in my life have little familiarity.

Mr. Obama was on the cover of the preceding issue of Esquire. I wonder about the education he got hanging out with the Esquire "gang." Perhaps he felt right at home.

Cynthia Asghar

Chicago, IL

As a woman, I feel bruised by the way Hillary Clinton has been treated in the media, The Nation included. I have felt nauseated by the video put together by the Women's Media Center, on "Sexism might sell, but I am not buying it." I am not saying that Hillary Clinton was a perfect candidate, but she brought out the ugly sexist machismo of "phallocrats" across the land and the ugliness of women challenged to assume their own power in their own name. It still ain't easy to be a woman... As for Barack Obama, I wish I could be turned on like millions of others are. I am not. A friend of mine cannot think of bringing herself to vote for him, she will hand in a white ballot on November 4. Maybe the US deserves McCain, she wrote me. I personally do not know. All I know is my bruising and my deep deep anger at the way women, through Hillary, have been treated. This I will not forget, and if I ever find a way to correct the insults, I will.

Claire Bangasser

San Juan, Puerto Rico